Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00
in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of
around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front
of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next.

The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that he was
just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another tough day at
work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands of other cars on
the freeway. Now he's into the state for hundreds of dollars, not to
mention the future insurance costs. That's food out of his family's
mouths; clothes off their backs. And for what? So Joe Cop could make his
quota this month?

(Judy and Carl, here's a pre-emptive STFU for you.)

* yes, I realize that 99% of the readers will have no clue where this
is.

--
Bob

"Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
...
(the posted speed limit is 65).

Nuff said!

In article >,
"Thomas Avery" > wrote:

> "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> ...
> (the posted speed limit is 65).
>
> Nuff said!

"Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around 75-80mph"

The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no one.

Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
principles?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
>
> > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> >
> > Nuff said!
>
> "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
75-80mph"
>
> The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
one.
>
> Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> principles?

If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
you want.

>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article .com>,
"Furious George" > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > >
> > > Nuff said!
> >
> > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> 75-80mph"
> >
> > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> one.
> >
> > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > principles?
>
> If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> you want.

We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a
manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle
can cause.

Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim
can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour,
and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
*not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.


Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there
is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted
limit) as a form of endangerment.

That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
rest of us.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Furious George" > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > >
> > > > Nuff said!
> > >
> > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > 75-80mph"
> > >
> > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> > one.
> > >
> > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > principles?
> >
> > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including
the
> > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you
want
> > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to
whatever
> > you want.
>
> We all have the right to use the roads.

Says you. When the government closes the road for repaving, are they
violating the rights of everyone.

> We have a duty to do so in a
> manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor
vehicle
> can cause.
>
> Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to

> have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A
victim
> can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless
behaviour,
> and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>
>
> Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in

> question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors

> than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit),
there
> is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the
posted
> limit) as a form of endangerment.

Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis for
declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same thing.
If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use the
facility.

>
> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on
the
> rest of us.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

The law must be different in Canada.

In the U.S., there is no requirement that there be a victim for one to obey
the law. Use of the roads as a driver is a matter of license in this
country. A driver's obligations on the road goes beyond just safety. We have
strong environmental requirements for vehicles, for example. In this
country, driving an unregistered, uninsured vehicle may in fact be safe. But
motorists face legal obligations in those areas nonetheless..

But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even
presidents bow down to the law. Because of the rule of law, no one from the
government can simply take us away in the middle of the night. It's what
gives us our most basic protections. So for Americans, the duty to follow
the law - whether on the roads or elsewhere - is not so much for safety or
anything as it is to assure us that nobody ... not the president, the cop,
the judge, the millionaire, the TV star, nor the biggest guy or the smallest
guy can take away our basic freedoms. It's kind of ironic in a way - we see
laws as limiting our freedoms while at the same time as guaranteeing our
freedoms.

The other ironic thing is that the judicial branch in this country doesn't
have the guns or army or nuclear weapons of the executive branch. Its only
power is derived from our willingness to accept the bang of the gavel, to
accept the necessity that we acquiesce to the rules that we set for
ourselves as a society, even though no one agrees with every one of them all
of the time. And it's for one very good reason above all else: The law can't
guarantee our freedom if we take the position that we don't have to abide by
any rule we don't agree with. When a cop pulls us over for speeding, he is
not only enforcing someone idea's of safety (or as some say here, raising
revenue), he is, most important, saying that the respect for the law is the
crucial thing. He is saying that for the same reason you can't drive 80 in a
55, I can't take out my gun and shoot you because I don't like your skin
color or religion or because I'm simply wearing a badge. Our willingness to
accept this system - even if it means that we have to drive a little slower
or pay taxes we don't like - is what makes the U.S. great. I thought is was
pretty much the same thing in Canada.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Furious George" > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > >
> > > > Nuff said!
> > >
> > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > 75-80mph"
> > >
> > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> > one.
> > >
> > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > principles?
> >
> > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> > you want.
>
> We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a
> manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle
> can cause.
>
> Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
> have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim
> can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour,
> and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>
>
> Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
> question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
> than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there
> is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted
> limit) as a form of endangerment.
>
> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
> rest of us.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Furious George" > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > >
> > > > Nuff said!
> > >
> > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > 75-80mph"
> > >
> > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> > one.
> > >
> > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > principles?
> >
> > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> > you want.
>
> We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a
> manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle
> can cause.
>
Sorry, you may have the right to use the roads on foot/using a bicycle, but
in CA, where the violation occurred, it is a REVOKABLE PRIVILEGE to drive a
motor vehicle on the roads. Get enough negligent driver points, the license
can be suspended, get enough beyond that, and it can be revoked.

> Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
> have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim
> can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour,
> and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>
The written law is the California Basic Speed Law--Palo Alto is in CA. The
driver in question, if he insisted on speeding, should have been smart
enough to be on the lookout for cops, or even better, probably should have
reduced speed.

>
> Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
> question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
> than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there
> is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted
> limit) as a form of endangerment.
>
And since there are insufficient cops on the road to cite all the violators,
they probably have to pick just one--probably either the lead car or the
fastest car.

Again, if the drivers insist on speeding, they also should accept that they
may very well be held accountable for their speed violations.

> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
> rest of us.
>
No, actually it's speed at your own risk, and accept responsibility for the
speed violations if and when pulled over and subsequently cited for them. It
really is as simple as that.

The speed limit signs, regardless of what popular opinion may think about
them being "underposted", still govern the maximum LEGAL speed of the road
in tandem with the California Basic Speed Law.

Furious George wrote:

> If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> you want.

You're either a troll or a poor old scared geezer no longer
capable of keeping up with traffic

In article .com>,
says...

>If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
>posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
>to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
>you want.

Sure, I'll do my part if the idiots putting up the signs will do their part.
That means they should be properly setting the speed limit. That the majority
of traffic is travelling well above the limit is evidence that they are not
setting the limits properly.
-----------
Alex